treg@e)i tyrb(l Myrwspwrph dwgy) Newsletter of the National Association of Professors of Hebrew Editor: Zev Garber, Los Angeles Valley College Fall 2016 No. 88 In This Issue: Presidential Perspective Notes From Here I flew to Rhode Island to attend the annual NAPH and There 3 conference, held at Brown University, straight out of the last class meeting of my graduate-level summer Meetings and course. The course, Dissertation Boot Camp, brings Conferences 20 together twenty plus dissertators from our Liberal Arts departments, and the goal is for them to sit NAPH Annual together for four hours or so daily and write, Meeting 24 completing a chapter of their respective dissertations International by the end of the course and, hopefully, maintaining the writing momentum all the Conference 28 way to the finish line. I incorporate in the course conversations about issues such as time management, resilience, student-supervisor dynamics, and alt-ac careers, and Notes from introduce the students to experts on mental health, nutrition, and fitness. I work with the Field 29 them on the “elevator pitch” version of their dissertation, and try to break the pattern of isolation that is often a behavioral signature of the dissertator, especially in the News from Our humanities. I find myself increasingly in the position of struggling to assure these Members 35 bright, conscientious and creative young scholars that their work is significant, that Eta Beta Rho 40 our disciplinary traditions and methods of inquiry are viable, and that we, academics, are relevant. NAPH Officers and I recently read Te-Erika Patterson’s article “Why Do So Many Graduate Students Addresses 42 Quit?” (The Atlantic, July 6 2016), which discusses doctoral students’ struggles with depression and other mental-health issues, poor mentoring practices, and a weak job market. One of my boot-campers sent it to me, noting how the article echoed some of our course conversations. My response to him, like many of our conversations, referenced the relevance of his work: his dissertation chronicles shifts in presidential beliefs about “national character,” and the manner in which such beliefs influence American foreign policy. At a time when it looks like our country is in free fall, can one question the import of such work, and the rationale for training as a scholar who can produce this kind of knowledge? We are at a point that demands serious self- examination, and while I do not subscribe to downhearted outlooks like that of Leonard Cassuto in The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It (Harvard University Press, 2015), I can fully see the merit of an observation that he makes in the book: “The nonacademic population is angry at the university,” he writes (211). I have, indeed, witnessed such sentiments, here in Texas and nationwide. More broadly, and acutely at this point in time, I am deeply troubled by the “anger” discourse that has dominated this year’s primary season, and by one of its popular spinoffs, the widespread disdain for “the elite.” We may not be policy experts or news- channel commentators, but as academics we are often perceived as pundits, as providers of services that are unjustifiably expensive, as agents of a system that Continued on next page. Fall 2016, No. 88 3 Presidential Perspective (Continued) . impoverishes its own trainees. Our scholars in the making often work under conditions that have the potential of bringing about distress and depression—this disdain adds a layer of uneasiness, and a formidable one. For us, at the University of Texas at Austin, this layer is augmented by a palpable threat, as we brace ourselves for the implementation of Senate Bill 11, known as “campus carry,” scheduled to go into effect on August 1, the 50th anniversary of the 1966 shooting spree that claimed 14 lives on the UT campus. I get a painful daily reminder of where we stand as I am greeted by the gold-leafed Hebrew letters on the UT Tower, now rusty and barely recognizable like the other ancient letters on the 80-year old symbol of the University. These symbols of our commitment to knowledge are allowed to fade, while guns are invited into our classrooms. How did we get here? I really do not know. I write this column at the end of a dark week, as verbal and physical violence dominate the news, and I struggle to not lose heart. As I look for healing, I know that there is a big “how” hovering over us, with very few answers: We should turn to love and kindness. To our faith. To dialogue. To the common Continued on next page. Fall 2016, No. 88 4 Presidential Perspective (Continued) . core of our humanity. For us, Hebrew scholars, as for other academics, the “how” is perhaps dependent on our ability to keep doing what we do best, and continue the work through which we preserve and hold on to cultures, memories, and values that may quickly be pushed into oblivion if we retreat into academic solitude. ואהבת לרעך כמוך Much like the memory of Palmira is kept alive in the work of art historians, the memory of lives in our work, as does, for me, Alterman’s post WWI imperative that has suddenly gained a new, "שני בנים לי. שנים.../אהבתים מאוד. ליבותיהם טובים./ אך בבוא היום... למען השמים,/ אל תתנו :unexpected sense of urgency להם רובים." So at this point in the sad summer of 2016, it is comforting and gratifying to think back to our conference, and note that we are still vibrant and innovative, staying on course in our focus on scholarship, and taking NAPH forward with new members and fresh ideas: The papers in Hebrew Studies, our language and literature journal edited by Serge Frolov (SMU), are now available electronically, which has significantly increased the exposure to the work of our colleagues; Hebrew Higher Education, our methodology and pedagogy journal, will appear under the editorship of Nitza Krohn (JTS) in a new electronic format with articles published on a rolling basis; The Conference Committee, under the leadership of Zafrira Lidovsky Cohen (Stern College of Yeshiva University), is pushing forward with new topics and panel formats and broader outreach to potential members. And with the knowledge that 2015-16 has been a good year in the job market for Hebrew applied linguists and pedagogy experts, I conclude on a hopeful note, looking forward to the renewal of energy, grit, friendships and collaborations that come with our conference interactions and sustain us from one hot summer to the next and beyond. Esther Raizen, The University of Texas at Austin, [email protected] Notes From Here & There Zev Garber In collaboration with Rebecca Alpert, Eugene Fisher, Gudrun Lier, Richard Libowitz, David Patterson, Norman Simms, Joshua Schwartz, Marvin A. Sweeney The academic year 2015-16 witnessed on a number of American college and university campuses virulent anti-Israel activity. Disrespect, disruption, defamation marred pro-Israel events. In my home state of California, confrontational demonstrations (quasi and whole) occurred at San Diego State University, San Francisco State University, and the University of California campuses in Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles. Typical was the vocal protest by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), Muslim Student Union (MDU), MeCHA, BSU, and other groups who disrupted a pro-Israel film (“Under the Helmet”) and discussion at UC Irvine (May 18, 2016). Representatives of the National Lawyers Guild counter-claimed that the protesters made no threats, destroyed no property, and listened to campus police when told that they were blocking the exit. The declared position of the University: free speech is a privilege not an absolute right. That is to say, speech without threat or intimidation excludes defamatory speech, threats, harassment, etc. Interrupting school sanctioned pro-Israel events with shouts of “Allahu Akbar,” “Displacing People since ‘48/ There’s Nothing Here to Celebrate,” “Long Live Intifada,” “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” permeate the line of civility. Granted vilification of Israel by the call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is politically correct or incorrect or seen as antisemitism, anti-Zionism or appropriate downsizing of a tyrannical state is common fare in American polity. However, when academic societies (American Studies Association, Association for Asian American Studies, African Literature Association, Critical Ethnic Studies Association, National Women’s Studies Association, Native American and Indigenous Studies Association and on) have voted for an academic boycott of Israel and its schools of higher education under the veneer Continued on next page. Fall 2016, No. 88 5 of ethical and moral repute of an oppressing power, we question its reason and intent. The American Anthropological Association (AAA) anti-Israel resolution and advisory is not a-typical. Scholars of different backgrounds, countries, disciplines, and religions were invited to comment on the merits of the AAA BDS resolution and related activity. AAA Votes Down Academic Boycott Resolution Other Actions Planned In a close vote, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) membership voted against a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. Voting took place by electronic ballot between April 15 and May 31. Fifty-one percent of AAA’s eligible members voted, the largest turnout in AAA history, with 2,423 members opposing the resolution, and 2,384 voting to support it. “The membership has spoken and we hear them,” said AAA President Alisse Waterston. “We appreciate this was a difficult vote on an important and contentious issue. I’m especially proud that our members participated in knowledgeable, thoughtful, respectful debate throughout the process, and that AAA offers a model for informed engagement on difficult subjects.